Not Going Back: Civil Rights, Immigration, and Representation in the Next Administration

“This is an existential crisis because their message is ‘get out!’ I don’t know how to make that more clear.” warned Representative Gene Wu – a legislator in the Texas House of Representatives representing the 137th District – speaking on a panel addressing civil rights threats at NIAC’s 2024 Symposium. “If we do not fight back now, there may not be a home for us to go back to.” 

Rep. Wu discussed the phenomenon of 21st century alien land laws that have passed in most states in the U.S. in the past year and prevent certain nationals from purchasing property, as well as other threats to civil liberties – including efforts to bar certain nationals from U.S. universities. “It’s not just the laws, it’s the implications of these laws. Because every time we pass these laws they say ‘there’s something wrong with these people,’” said Rep. Wu. He noted that national security justifications underpin the laws, and that over time these trigger acceptance of suspicion of immigrant communities that produces overt discrimination. Rep. Wu warned that things could even go so far as to bring back the return of internment, which was conducted against Japanese Americans amid World War II.

Golnaz Fakhimi, legal director with Muslim Advocates, also addressed the pending return of the Muslim Ban on the panel. She noted that, unfortunately, the courts upheld Donald Trump’s ban on travel by certain nationals in his first term and that the legal decision still holds. She noted a key legal similarity with regard to Japanese internment, which “was upheld as lawful by our Supreme Court and that decision still stands as a matter of law.” Fakhimi continued “The decision of the Supreme Court upholding the third version of the Muslim ban has actually been lambasted as being as bad as the Supreme Court precedent from decades prior upholding Japanese internment. Common to both decisions is a sort of very deep deference accorded to the Executive Branch of government on questions of putative national security, period.”

Ryan Costello, Policy Director with the National Iranian American Council, moderated the discussion and noted how the Muslim ban had a serious impact on many members of the Iranian-American community and others impacted by the ban. Visa processing for Iranians cratered from 40,000 annually under the Obama administration into the low thousands under the Trump administration. As Costello noted, “That’s a lot of families who can’t see their loved ones. That’s a lot of students who can’t get visas to come here to study, even though they’re very skilled and have been admitted here to study at universities.” With the end of the ban, visas rebounded up to roughly 25,000 annually under the Biden administration, resulting in more than 60,000 visas being processed than would have otherwise. But, the ban is now set to return and once again risks impacting Iranian-American families.

Jason Rathod, founding partner of Miliaccio & Rathod LLC, also joined the panel and spoke on a recent class action lawsuit his firm led seeking justice for individuals of Iranian heritage who wrongfully had their bank accounts restricted by Bank of America. As noted, Bank of America and other major financial institutions have engaged in mass “de-risking” of accounts held by Iranians and Iranian Americans in an effort to comply with U.S. sanctions that prohibit the servicing of accounts held by individuals “ordinarily resident in Iran.” As discovered in the lawsuit, Bank of America admitted to restricting 15,000 accounts held by individuals of Iranian heritage – a staggering figure. 

As Rathod noted, “Bank of America and others will say this is required by the sanctions laws.” However, he noted that those laws “don’t mention citizenship at all. What they restrict is that they can’t service Iranian accounts, which is if you’re physically present and ordinarily resident in Iran. Which Bank of America knew, for example, our client when he went to use his credit card at Whole Foods in San Diego, he was obviously not physically present in Iran so they had no basis to restrict his account. And this is the vast majority of people – they meet neither of these conditions so they have no business or no right to restrict or close their accounts.”

National security tensions are at the root of all the threats to civil liberties discussed on the panel – from alien land laws, to the Muslim ban, to the unjust closure of bank accounts. What advice, then, did the panelists have for communities that could be impacted by these laws? Critically, mass mobilization did secure a favorable outcome in defeating an alien land law proposal SB 147 in Texas, which Rep. Wu was a vocal advocate against. Costello summarized their recommendations to close out the discussion, stating “We still live in a Constitutional democracy. We’ve got to know our rights. We’ve got to mobilize, and we’ve got to tell our story.”